If you still think it makes economic sense, let me ask you this: would you support a program that paid people money to burn down their old homes if they paid a builder to build a new one? Because that's essentially what this program is, except with cars. You can NEVER create wealth by destroying wealth. It's impossible.

The "benefit" of this program is that it replaces fuel inefficient vehicles with efficient ones. But does it really out weigh the negatives? Most of the clunkers, by definition, are probably 2-5 years away from the garbage dump. So tell me, do you think the economic negatives of this program are outweighed by an extra 10 mpg for 2-5 years? I don't.

Its a subsidy for the car makers at the expense of everyone else. That's all it is.

What the heck gave you the impression that I support the program? I think it is garbage, and I wish it never existed...

That said, IMO it makes a TON more sense than a lot of these programs going on right now. I'd rather give people an incentive to purchase something than quite literally create a bureaucracy to say that they've "created" a few jobs.

But the program does more than you claim... it also provides a "bailout" to the automanufacturers without handing them a loan, and the govt. is getting a LOT of this money back. This program creates jobs, liquidates old auto inventory (which helps support the price of new cars), gets the govt. revenue by way of income tax, gives states much needed money by way of sales tax and licensing, AND improves gas mileage. That's not bad for $4,500 a pop... I'm not saying that we're getting our money's worth out of the program, I'm only saying that on many many occasions the govt. has gotten much much less for their investment.

I also have to agree with you that the cars that they're taking in would end up in the dump in 2-3 years anyhow... People do whatever it takes to keep their cars on the road, and many of these cars are missing pollution control devices/gas mileage saving devices (like proper O2 sensors) compounding the problem. Car crashes much more so than wearing out take cars off of the road. Ever been to parts galore (or any junk yard)? Ever been to a place that sells donated cars? At any junk yard you're hard pressed to find a car that hasn't been hit somewhere... At chairty car lots they CONSTANTLY sell cars that look like they SHOULD belong in the dump just to have someone make them driveable and have something affordable.

I'm not saying I support the progam... there are very few govt. programs I like... but at least this one we're getting something out of... and there are plenty of govt. programs that cannot say the same...

August 3rd, 2009, 1:31 pm

wjb21ndtown

steensn wrote:

I agree, but it won't be any better next elections cycle... or the one after that... or the one after that. I don't like this bill, but something has to be done. I'm not saying I want this bill to pass to be the something.

I disagree... Right now only about 51% (and even that is arguable if you look at the numbers) of the population has ANY say in the ongoings of Congress or the Whitehouse. If the sentiment that exists right now holds true there is going to be some sort of power shift, even if its not major. Even picking up three Senate seats would make a WORLD of difference to the political process right now, and I think anything making out of that new process would make a TON more sense. Right now there is no restraint, and there definitely needs to be. We're selling the farm for some magic beans, and I don't think we're going to end up with a magic beanstalk full of riches...

August 3rd, 2009, 1:36 pm

steensn

RIP Killer

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pmPosts: 13429

I just don't think the quality of the outcome will be better no matter who is in power. I mean, seriously, we just went 6 years with Reps in full power then 2 years with Dems in charge with Rep having the final say and nothing got done. Why would it be better if we had more Rep say then we have now?

I just don't think the quality of the outcome will be better no matter who is in power. I mean, seriously, we just went 6 years with Reps in full power then 2 years with Dems in charge with Rep having the final say and nothing got done. Why would it be better if we had more Rep say then we have now?

The Reps don't want universal heathcare, they're not going to try to get anything done on the issue. The Dems do and will try to get something done... That said, there needs to be a Rep voice in the outcome of the plan to keep the Dems restrained.

August 3rd, 2009, 2:17 pm

steensn

RIP Killer

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pmPosts: 13429

Yeah, but they also didn't do anything to lower cost or come up with other solutions to make a universal healthcare approach seem enticing to voters. I would say that some Rep did want universal healthcare though (Romney). Either way, they did nothing but cut funding for healthcare and did not do anything to help fix some of the issues with our system, leaving the door wide open for the Dems in 06 and 08.

Yeah, but they also didn't do anything to lower cost or come up with other solutions to make a universal healthcare approach seem enticing to voters. I would say that some Rep did want universal healthcare though (Romney). Either way, they did nothing but cut funding for healthcare and did not do anything to help fix some of the issues with our system, leaving the door wide open for the Dems in 06 and 08.

That doesn't change the fact that allowing the Dems to run rampant and come up with an overbearing plan that costs way too much and over-takes the insurance industry as we know it is NOT a good idea. It's not about what the Reps. did or didn't do, its about what the Dems. WILL DO if they're not tempered by another voice.

August 3rd, 2009, 2:34 pm

steensn

RIP Killer

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pmPosts: 13429

I'm just saying I won't be happy either way. I in no way support this new Dem plan. It is short sighted, under funded, under estimated, etc. But why all the hubbub now from the Reps? Where was the foresight when they did nothing for 6 years besides war? They didn't fix SS, they didn't fix healthcare, they really didn't do anything. Rep input will only take the edge off this massive bill, scary bill. I am still not going to like it as I didn't like the Rep doing nothing.

I'm just saying I won't be happy either way. I in no way support this new Dem plan. It is short sighted, under funded, under estimated, etc. But why all the hubbub now from the Reps? Where was the foresight when they did nothing for 6 years besides war? They didn't fix SS, they didn't fix healthcare, they really didn't do anything. Rep input will only take the edge off this massive bill, scary bill. I am still not going to like it as I didn't like the Rep doing nothing.

Steen... Why would you complain about something that you don't want to change? Why would you raise "hubbub" about something that you want to leave alone? Sure, the Reps. thought that there were/are little things wrong with healthcare, but they're generally happy with what we have. It is natural and common sense that they wouldn't talk about heathcare. Sure they could have tried to do something about HC costs, but it's not a major issue for them. They were a little busy fighting a war. Regardless of the merits of the war it is still more important to manage it once it is started then to take up new projects.

August 3rd, 2009, 2:53 pm

steensn

RIP Killer

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pmPosts: 13429

I dont feel congress did anything but war and even then they weren't involved much.

I know you folks have changed subjects but could ya do me a favor and follow the link to make sure it does as it should? I wasn't able to get it through mine, so I don't know if the link is faulty. The information is quite thought provoking, and I was unable to post it at the time you were discussing the thread topic. Enjoy, and it's sequel is an excellent point too!

_________________Acts 4:13, 1 Cor. 2:1-5, Rom. 12:1-2

August 3rd, 2009, 3:09 pm

wjb21ndtown

steensn wrote:

I dont feel congress did anything but war and even then they weren't involved much.

Why don't you understand that your point is completely irrelevant?

August 3rd, 2009, 3:13 pm

steensn

RIP Killer

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pmPosts: 13429

What point? I don't think it would be better because we still have a problem that they could have fixed. They said they cared during the election, we have Reps with good plans, they haven't done anything. Best offense is a good defense, everyone knew this would be pushed if Dems got in power and here we are.

What point? I don't think it would be better because we still have a problem that they could have fixed. They said they cared during the election, we have Reps with good plans, they haven't done anything. Best offense is a good defense, everyone knew this would be pushed if Dems got in power and here we are.

The point that the last Congress didn't do anything about the problem is irrelevant to the discussion. THIS Congress is going to do something about it (or try damn hard) and it would be better if there was a tempered point of view in the decision making process regarding what is about to happen.

August 3rd, 2009, 5:25 pm

Blueskies

QB Coach

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 3084

Quote:

But the program does more than you claim... it also provides a "bailout" to the automanufacturers without handing them a loan, and the govt. is getting a LOT of this money back. This program creates jobs, liquidates old auto inventory (which helps support the price of new cars), gets the govt. revenue by way of income tax, gives states much needed money by way of sales tax and licensing, AND improves gas mileage. That's not bad for $4,500 a pop... I'm not saying that we're getting our money's worth out of the program, I'm only saying that on many many occasions the govt. has gotten much much less for their investment.

That's all it is. A bailout--a subsidy.

The government cannot create wealth through spending programs like this. It can only transfer it from one sector to another.

The CARS program isn't free--it's costing $3B dollars. That's $3B that will have to be taxed (or borrowed which is another issue altogether) and when you tax you are destroying jobs. So they may be creating or saving jobs in the auto industry, but for every job they create/save its at the expense of another job in some other field.

Quote:

I'm not saying I support the progam... there are very few govt. programs I like... but at least this one we're getting something out of... and there are plenty of govt. programs that cannot say the same...

Yes, its another misguided government program. It happens to benefit us as residents of MI, but overall its a net negative.

Quote:

I just don't think the quality of the outcome will be better no matter who is in power. I mean, seriously, we just went 6 years with Reps in full power then 2 years with Dems in charge with Rep having the final say and nothing got done. Why would it be better if we had more Rep say then we have now?

Agreed. There's very little difference between the two major parties; I don't even think there's much difference between Obama and Bush.

Healthcare is really the ONLY issue you can point to as a deciding factor, and even then the Republicans have yet to present a viable alternative. Keeping the status quo is not an option.

August 3rd, 2009, 11:32 pm

wjb21ndtown

Blueskies wrote:

Quote:

But the program does more than you claim... it also provides a "bailout" to the automanufacturers without handing them a loan, and the govt. is getting a LOT of this money back. This program creates jobs, liquidates old auto inventory (which helps support the price of new cars), gets the govt. revenue by way of income tax, gives states much needed money by way of sales tax and licensing, AND improves gas mileage. That's not bad for $4,500 a pop... I'm not saying that we're getting our money's worth out of the program, I'm only saying that on many many occasions the govt. has gotten much much less for their investment.

That's all it is. A bailout--a subsidy.

The government cannot create wealth through spending programs like this. It can only transfer it from one sector to another.

The CARS program isn't free--it's costing $3B dollars. That's $3B that will have to be taxed (or borrowed which is another issue altogether) and when you tax you are destroying jobs. So they may be creating or saving jobs in the auto industry, but for every job they create/save its at the expense of another job in some other field.

Quote:

I'm not saying I support the progam... there are very few govt. programs I like... but at least this one we're getting something out of... and there are plenty of govt. programs that cannot say the same...

Yes, its another misguided government program. It happens to benefit us as residents of MI, but overall its a net negative.

I couldn't disagree more... It's yet to be seen whether or not it is an overall negative. It's not just helping us here in MI. The Ford plant in Chicago is also considering adding another shift to beef up production on the Taurus. That's a couple of thousand mid-level jobs for $3billion, and that's JUST the effect it's had on Ford Mo. Co., not to mention the fact that we get income tax returns on all of the new jobs that come out of this, and income tax returns on the corporate profits.

Further, this program is 1000X's better than the ridiculous initial Dem. solution of building these little pet projects (like frisbee golf parks) and creating 3-10 sustainable jobs per $25million spent, or building roads to stimulate job growth, when, after the road is completed, there won't be any job left on the project.

Not to mention, the CARS program does more... It also grows consumer credit, the money supply, and it gets money off of the sidelines that people have been sitting on for the last two-four years. That's huge... consumer confidence is at a two year high, likely because of this program, which has sparked a rally in the market.

With all of these externalities, I don't see how you can blanketly say that this program is a negative after a quick, snap decision analysis. You're claiming that this program is robbing us of jobs in other sectors, but you provide no proof. This program may very well pay for itself in a hurry by way of taxing the money that we're sending out, and the growth in the economy that it is creating. Given that we're already printing money left and right, this program seems to be the best bang for our buck out there... Hell... I looking back I wish they would have done this with the 14-16 billion that they gave GM.